A THOUGHT ON PEOPLE AND IDEAS
By Publius II
It is human nature for man/woman to strive to improve his life. Therefore it comes as no surprise that he occasionally thinks and generates ideas.
Who knows? One of the many that enter a person’s thinking may with further development make him wealthy or at least happy.
There are a lot of people around so there are a lot of ideas. Most of these require little or no effort to generate. The law of supply and demand determines that the vast majority of these ideas are a dime a dozen. Their potential for improvement in an individual or society is practically nil. Some may even be harmful.
What are needed for the benefit of the individual and the society in which he/she lives are good ideas. The kicker here lies in making an accurate distinction between the good and the useless.
Victor Hugo once remarked: “You can resist an invading army. You cannot resist an idea whose time has come.” Perhaps timing should be considered when making that distinction.
Separating wheat from chaff requires effort. The intent of this thought is to show that attaining a desired goal is more than worth the effort.
Every good idea originates in a tiny minority: one thinking person. In the USA there is more than ample proof of the huge potential in good ideas: Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Ray Croc (McDonalds), William Hewlitt (HP Corporation), Sam Walton (Walmart), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and many more.
Today there are about 400 billionaires in this country, and most if not all are happy. China has about as many.
Good ideas can and do originate in the public sector as well. Names like Jefferson, Franklin and Madison spring to mind. Two of these men became presidents, as did Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.
In order to remain effective bureaucracies must be renewed or phased out periodically, just as in the private sector where no company lasts forever. There has been no significant renewal in government since FDR’s New Deal in 1933. Today’s US senate has gradually become so hidebound that it has been accurately described as a place where ideas go to die.
Has the supply of thoughts that could renew society diminished over the past 85 years? Probably not; even tho most citizens do not think about government there are always some who do. It is encouraging to read the news and see the ranks of the latter growing.
So, where are these potentially good ideas? There is no “probably” about this one: they are suppressed by top-down vested interests with big money who want the status quo to continue indefinitely.
To elaborate, businesses renew themselves frequently lest competitors bury them. (Apple Corporation springs to mind.) But in government there is competition only in theory; the essay about elections explains. In practice it is an unregulated monopoly unless citizens thru their ideas force basic changes from time to time in how they are governed.
Good ideas do not just generate vast wealth and/or fame for their originators. Plenty of good ideas also improve communities, states, nations and the world.
In a democracy a public official actively seeks good ideas from the people whom he/she serves. Indeed, this is how he determines the public will in order to help them act on it.
He has learned about the dynamics of self-government. He knows that this is the most effective way to move society forward because the same folks who must live under the resulting laws and policies can and will set a direction and a pace that suits them. Finally, he knows that citizens will monitor and improve the institutions that daily guide society in the best way possible. All they lack today is the opportunity.
But a leader must motivate those people to think and exert some effort to produce potentially good ideas. There follows free and open discussion, debate and constructive criticism among those who stand to benefit from the good ones. The goal of these activities is to attain that vital distinction between wheat and chaff.
Public servants call meetings for this purpose. The collective wisdom of the mass of citizens provides a resource that is nearly always superior to just one or a few citizens, however wise. Therefore creative individuals are needed to generate ideas, while the collective provides the necessary debate to bring forth the good ones as goads to actions aimed at improvement. Democracy is a work in progress.
Today’s poor excuse for government has top officials believing in the PANG principle: People Are No Good. They don’t think, so therefore they must be ruled by those who do instead of led as in democracy.
The latter philosophy of government not only rejects the PANG principle. Citizens deeply believe in the inherent tendency of the human animal to be and do good. They work to create, maintain and constantly improve a moral society that brings out this tendency in their fellow citizens.
Furthermore people support what they help to create. They will feel good for having contributed to the benefit of the community. Put another way, to paint a cohesive and dynamic political landscape put a paintbrush in every hand.
Democracy cannot work without collective wisdom. Without this vital resource great ideas would never see the light of day and no one would know it.
During the late 18th century the Englishman Thomas Paine believed that the collective wisdom of the mass of citizens would seldom go wrong when discussing an issue and reaching a decision. And whenever such wisdom did go astray the problem could easily be solved.
Top public officials in today’s Washington perceive citizens as the rabble. They have developed a self-serving conventional wisdom that does not move society in stark contrast to a collective wisdom that does. The tiny minority of these officials who take the time to talk seriously with a few ordinary blokes are always surprised at their intelligence.
There is a lesson in this. Beware the politician with charisma, for he/she may create a conventional wisdom that will someday become a threat to society.
Television robs people of their thinking time. It appeals to emotions and takes viewers on trips of wild fantasy. Any potentially useful idea that might enter the mind of a viewer is immediately obliterated by a string of loud commercial messages that are also designed to arouse emotions. Mobile phones tempt users in the same way.
But people must live from day to day in reality. To live effectively in the real world people’s thinking must be based more on reason than emotion. (George W Bush and 9/11 spring to mind.)
There is another side benefit to gathering for serious discussion. Today’s national news dispenses far more propaganda from Washington DC than results of serious investigative reporting. Therefore the only way for citizens to learn the truth about government is through social media such as Twitter, Linked-in, Instagram and others. (These can also include garbage.)
Jefferson said “Truth is a willing and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless deprived of her natural weapons such as free and open discussion and debate.”
A cardinal rule for criticism should be established and repeated at the start of each meeting. This is separation of the idea from the personality of its originator. This is very important because Sigmund Freud proved that everyone has an ego.
Most ideas will not survive criticism. A contributing citizen must realize that he/she is not being discarded but only his idea. Without this separation this particular tiny minority whose proposal did not make the cut will never share another idea with the group.
A useful application of this principle can be found in families. Parents united could say to an errant child: “We may not always love what you say and do, but we will always love you.” This mix of love and discipline can provide a basis for the exercise of mature judgment when raising children.
Minds may differ. But if the difference is clearly and rationally stated and understood to be in principle, hearts will remain united.
Therefore a critic should ask to speak and begin by telling the group what he/she likes about the proposed idea. Only then may he move diplomatically to what he thinks is weak about it and why.
He should complete his contribution by thanking the citizen who offered the idea to the collective wisdom of the meeting. Finally, the chair of the meeting should say that the group looks forward to further contributions from that citizen.
On the other hand, if his/her idea wins acceptance he should be praised. This should be done at the meeting, not over the phone or through email or texting. The chair may invite him to head or serve on a committee that would develop the idea and submit the result to the judgment of a future meeting.
When followed consistently these guidelines should motivate a citizen who generates an idea to work it over critically and either reject it or develop it further prior to presentation. He/she would probably try it out on several friends and family members beforehand, specifically to invite constructive criticism. This practice would contribute toward efficiency during meetings.
Before 1787 the world history of government had nearly always been top-down and oppressive rule by powerful rulers. The era of conquest and plunder had dominated and oppressed nearly the entire planet. During that summer 52 delegates met in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. They debated the merits of a national government guided by an idea.
They had originally intended to revise the ineffective Articles of Confederation. But the collective wisdom of these prominent delegates quickly led the group toward a different idea, which they called democracy.
They created a Constitution of the United States of America that provided for a representative democracy (or republic). It therefore included a congress. This was the best they could do at that time because travel and communication were so primitive. Then they offered this document/idea for discussion, debate, criticism and ultimate approval or rejection to the collective wisdom of the citizens of that infant nation. They wanted it to be the people’s constitution.
Unfortunately there exists no government in today’s world that can accurately be described as democratic. Public officials in the US may offer rhetoric that suggests they are open to ideas from ordinary citizens. But they don’t mean it.
The elite class in government perceives ordinary citizens as peasants to be ruled. There is no need for inputs from the peasants that might rock the boat. The Tea Party movement has some ideas, but the elites see them as a threat.
In his book House of the Dead Dostoevsky commented on human nature and lack of accountability: “Whoever has experienced the power, the unrestrained ability to humiliate another human being …… automatically loses power over his own sensations (emphases added). Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease.” Abusive governments throughout the world testify to this ugly truth.
Power refers to the natural human tendency to exert personal power over others. Practically everyone has done this or tried to do it. Power is based in the dark side of human nature. When permitted by the people it slowly creates an immoral and oppressive society. Pocket Gofer 13 elaborates.
Top officials who are victims of the power-seeking disease may not be satisfied with simply ruling over their own subjects. If they lack an incentive to stop they build powerful armies and send them abroad to attack other nations. Because violence begets more violence these countries then create threats. (See the essays on the futility of war and the external threat.)
The big kicker enters when someone becomes a high public official and has access to mountains of other people’s money. Unrestrained simply means that he/she knows no one is watching and holding him accountable. The bigger the mountain the more difficulty in holding these officials accountable.
Put these two key components together in one person or one elite class and it is appalling what man will do to his fellow man and to himself. Dostoevsky surely had a point.
Today’s US government is described as tyranny by only a minority. Even those who have studied the history of government may consider such description a stretch. (In 1776 it was not a stretch.) However, it is not tyranny itself but rather the trend that should bring forth deep concern among thinking citizens, for it is based in human nature. It will not go away because human nature cannot be repealed. Rather, it will only get worse.
Because it is humankind’s nature to be free many folks react negatively to top-down government. Older citizens who have gradually grown to accept such government believe that the young who protest are either blowing off steam or have nothing better to do. But those young whippersnappers are serious, as the current health reform flap and the tea party movement amply illustrate.
More and more of the young today are thinking. They see a nation torn up in one crisis after another at home and in two wars abroad (or is it three?). Greater numbers of those who serve in the armed forces are thinking, wondering why they are far from home and risking life and limb against two nations that have no practical way of bringing massive harm to this country. (The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by any nation. Commander-in-chief Trump seems to think that waging foreign wars is a lose-lose proposition.)
Furthermore young people have difficulty in seeing how they can fit successfully into the declining society described just above. They don’t see how they can carve out a meaningful destiny under today’s chaotic conditions. They think about the multi-trillion-dollar debt being run up by government officials that they and future children will be forced to pay.
Young citizens learn of high public officials who are growing fabulously wealthy at taxpayer expense. They watch this development while losing jobs and finding college no longer affordable. They leave the family home to seek their destiny only to fail and return home. Parents feel frustrated in their natural desire to see their children make out better than they did. Drugs and crime enter the picture.
The following example describes a serious problem in the US and an idea which, when subjected to the gantlet of discussion and debate might become a good one. There are 2.3 million people in US prisons today. This number is 32 times the number incarcerated in Japan, which has half the US population. About 33% there are drug offenders. About one in 31 adults is either in prison, in jail or in some form of supervised release. All this implies the existence of a sick society.
Violent offenders get almost no help in prison. When released many will not last long before they re-offend. Furthermore there are hundreds of thousands in prison who should not be there, which causes severe overcrowding. Clearly the whole system needs a major overhaul. This process would probably begin with a good idea.
Law is meant to guide citizens and punish offenders. There are three major difficulties with law in the US.
One of these is British common law, which refers judicial decisions backward to precedents set by previous rulings handed down as much as two or more centuries ago. This judicial system worked fairly well before the Industrial Revolution (1750-1850), when there were few changes in society from one generation to the next.
Not only is today’s society attempting to move forward with a judicial system that looks backward. Many of those ancient decisions were either irrelevant for the present or just plain terrible. Back then there was no democracy to guide judges’ decisions.
A second difficulty has evolved due to lawyers slowly pushing issues that were formerly resolved thru civil law into criminal law. Civil law is intended to handle offenses against people and property and disputes between individuals. Decisions aim at recourse to a victim or defining terms of settlement of a dispute.
Criminal law involves offenses against the government, and many more lawyers ordinarily become active in each such case. Therefore lawyers have organized efforts to transform many issues that were formerly civil law cases into criminal law. The combination of harsh prison conditions and an oppressive society on the outside poisons minds. If citizens governed themselves there would not be the alienation and mutual contempt that today separate people from government.
Many of these lawyers’ services should not be necessary. Their activities and often over-generous incomes therefore subtract from economic development.
The third difficulty is that the Rule of Law as set forth in the Constitution is routinely ignored in Washington, DC. The high and mighty have for decades considered themselves as above the law. This means they can do almost anything and avoid punishment. This abuse is a direct outgrowth of authoritarian government.
This thought is about ideas so here is one that could generate discussion and debate leading to a major improvement in the criminal justice system. In a democratic society prisons could be privatized. Contractors hired to manage them would submit competitive bids to win the business. They would be paid a bonus for every year an ex-con remained out of prison.
Contractors would therefore have an incentive to provide counseling and other preparation for re-entry to prisoners. Today these services hardly exist, so recidivism is rife and the nation’s prisons are horribly overcrowded. Therefore the idea would work to solve the overcrowding problem.
In a democracy citizens would gather to discuss and debate issues, reach decisions and make laws thru a bottom-up democratic process. This would eliminate both the problems of criminal law and British common law.
Furthermore with democracy lawmaking citizens would never tolerate a taxpayer-financed high and mighty elite class that ignores the law. There would be only public servants in Washington who would either set an example of conformity with the law or be unceremoniously pitched out of office by voters. Citizens would force fair and clean elections, which would mean limited terms of service for public officials.
Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine frequently indulged in reflection. Paine liked to “entertain those spontaneous visitors” that entered his head. Ideas that he considered good survived this screening and entered his writing.
In this way a man with almost no formal education could spread influence among the masses and stir their thinking. Paine’s example implies that effective citizens and public officials in a democracy need not be intellectual giants.
In today’s frantic world a habit of reflection is difficult to acquire. It takes self-discipline, which is connected to self-knowledge which, in turn, is connected to good education.
But the potential is unlimited. One huge benefit accruing from practicing this habit over a period of time consists in the ability to distinguish between working hard and working smart. Self-insight, continuing learning and holistic health are other benefits. Finally, making a significant contribution to a moral society guided by democracy is truly self-actualizing.
The Frenchman Alexi de Tocqueville visited the US in 1830. He found a thriving democracy where the vast bulk of governing took place at the grassroots in town meetings and informal discussions among active citizens.
These people were extremely busy carving a living out of the wilderness, establishing viable businesses and dealing with hostile Indians. But from grisly experience in the old country they knew and appreciated the importance of building good government. Indeed, they rejoiced in the opportunity in what was then the Land of Opportunity.
They made the time available as they applied themselves to the task. After all, time management is little more than effectively setting priorities.
De Tocqueville found Washington, DC “—– a sleepy little town.” He found this to be very different from his experience with oppressive governments in Europe. It is tempting thru reflection to contrast the two Washingtons. Which one is better for today’s citizens, the small variety or the big? Pocket Gofer 15 elaborates.
The young Frenchman also made a point about women in this infant nation. “———– her mind as capable to discover truth, and her heart as firm to face it.” He concluded that among the many differences that existed between both sides of the Atlantic Ocean perhaps the most significant lay in “——- the superiority of their women.”
Jefferson: “If I know the manners and spirit of the people they will not let the venom get beyond control before acting to remedy the situation.” Today those manners and spirit are being put to the acid test.
Ronald Reagan: “No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
If thru discussion and debate today’s citizens come to one mind about their government and what could be done about it the next logical step will require courage of their convictions. (Edward Snowden springs to mind.) Publius II prays that these steps will be taken, at which time let no man overlook the heart and mind of woman.